SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
"We will not ban questionable subreddits," Reddit's then-CEO, Yishan Wong, wrote mere months ago. "You choose what to post. You choose what to read. You choose what kind of subreddit to create."
But in an apparent reversal of that policy, and in an unprecedented effort to clean up its long-suffering image, Reddit has just banned five "questionable subreddits."
The site permanently removed the forums Wednesday afternoon for harassing specific, named individuals, a spokesperson said. Of the five, two were dedicated to fat-shaming, one to transphobia, one to racism and one to harassing members of a progressive video game site.
Unsurprisingly, a vocal contingent of Redditors aren't taking the changes well: "Reddit increases censorship," read one post on r/freespeech, while forums like r/mensrights and r/opieandanthony theorized they would be next.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by K_benzoate on Friday June 12 2015, @05:50PM
If it hasn't been achieved, it's at least partially the fault of feminism actively fighting to create inequity between the sexes (in favor of women).
Climate change is real and primarily caused by human activity.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2015, @06:08PM
> If it hasn't been achieved, it's at least partially the fault of feminism actively fighting to create inequity between the sexes (in favor of women).
Yay, a concern troll FTL!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 13 2015, @06:15AM
What the hell is a "concern troll", and why do so many people use "troll" to describe someone they disagree with? It's ridiculous.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 13 2015, @05:54PM
Urban dictionary definition [urbandictionary.com]:
Rational wiki entry [rationalwiki.org]:
lrn2googl, troll
(Score: 2) by tathra on Friday June 12 2015, @08:57PM
no, its the fault of extremist nutjobs who use the banner of "feminism" as their excuse, the exact same way that extremist nutjobs use various religions as their excuse to oppress and force their will on others. just like with religion, being a "feminist" is something that is typically known via self-identification, but when you look at the actual morals and goals and such involved, the extremists' actions and beliefs do not match with the actual movement. extremists doing this crap have the effect of destroying the reputation and trust of whatever system they're using as their excuse, but even though they're really not "believers" (for lack of a better term) in the system, pointing out that they're not is difficult if not impossible to distinguish from the "No True Scottsman" fallacy (eg, "They're not real feminists/Christians/Muslims/etc", even though they're really not). at any rate, the blaming all feminists for the actions of a minority of extremists is a false generalization fallacy, no question about that.
(Score: 1) by KGIII on Saturday June 13 2015, @05:34AM
Part of the problem (perhaps the biggest part) is that it is the extremists who do the extreme things (circular, I know). In other words, it is the vocal minority who are heard. If we look back at the Occupy movement, it was not the rational thinkers that got press - it was the insane that were on the news. This is not unusual. News is precisely that. News is not about the norm, it is about the exception and that is what makes it newsworthy.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Saturday June 13 2015, @06:18AM
but even though they're really not "believers" (for lack of a better term) in the system, pointing out that they're not is difficult if not impossible to distinguish from the "No True Scottsman" fallacy
That's because it is the No True Scotsman fallacy. You don't get to decide what a "true" Muslim, Christian, or feminist looks like, and especially not if the definitions aren't even objective to begin with.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 13 2015, @10:58AM
It's not a "no true Scotsman" when you take on a specific label and yet do not act in accordance to the mutually agreed upon definition. Suppose we can both agree that humanism is about protecting the right of people to live and be happy. If I were to call myself a humanist despite insisting on boiling babies alive and eating them, then it wouldn't be NTS to say that I'm not a humanist.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Saturday June 13 2015, @11:07AM
It's not a "no true Scotsman" when you take on a specific label and yet do not act in accordance to the mutually agreed upon definition.
Except that there is no specific, objective definition of these terms. Furthermore, they're not "mutually agreed upon"; there are many differing views. The people in the WBC probably believe others aren't "true Christians", and other Christians believe the WBC aren't "true Christians". Well, at least the WBC more closely follows their holy book, I guess.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Saturday June 13 2015, @11:27AM
And even the above definition of "humanism" you gave is open for debate. Maybe someone would use a different definition of "people", "happy", etc.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 13 2015, @02:10PM
Except that there is no specific, objective definition of these terms.
Feminism - the ideology of advancing pro-female agenda with the explicit goal of securing equal standing of women in society. When people act to give women special privileges or take away men's privileges then this explicitly contradicts the mission statement.
$RELIGION_DENOMINATION - the belief and effort to adhere to the creed of a given religion. Note, that adherence needs not be complete, as religious is not a boolean state.
The people in the WBC probably believe others aren't "true Christians", and other Christians believe the WBC aren't "true Christians". Well, at least the WBC more closely follows their holy book, I guess.
Yes, and that would be fallacious. However, it's also not relevant here because that would be discriminating based on arbitrary non-indicative criteria. Strictly speaking each form of Christianity is it's own sect and should be considered a separate religion in the same religious family, but that's not relevant in casual discussion.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 13 2015, @02:15PM
men's privileges
That was poorly worded of me, it should have read "equal rights for men". An example would be the legal statue of protection against genitalia mutilation, which is total for women, and yet male circumcision is permitted. A while back, there was a strong backlash from self-identified feminists against outlawing the practice for boys.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Saturday June 13 2015, @04:27PM
Feminism - the ideology of advancing pro-female agenda with the explicit goal of securing equal standing of women in society. When people act to give women special privileges or take away men's privileges then this explicitly contradicts the mission statement.
That's not an objective definition; there is plenty of vague and subjective terminology there. Someone doesn't like how someone is trying to achieve their goals, so they say they're not "true feminists"; it's nonsense.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 13 2015, @05:50PM
There's no such thing as a perfectly objective, non-vague, non-general definition for any word. "Mutually agreed-upon by the majority" is the closest you can get.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday June 14 2015, @11:00AM
There's no such thing as a perfectly objective, non-vague, non-general definition for any word.
But some are more vague than others. Some people have essentially arbitrarily decided that certain people aren't True Feminists because they go about trying to accomplish their goals in ways they don't like.
"Mutually agreed-upon by the majority" is the closest you can get.
That's not too convincing. Within subcultures, the majority can agree on a definition. Maybe these feminist 'extremists' have their own definitions.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 14 2015, @05:19PM
The goal of feminism is gender equality, it is not to make women superior to men or to have men subservient to women. The so-called feminists who aren't working for equality but instead are working to make men subservient to women or otherwise make men inferior are not, by definition, feminists.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 14 2015, @05:34PM
To clarify, think of corporate espionage. A worker from company B goes to work for company A; the spy is labeled as a worker for company A, but he's not, he's working for entirely different goals than the rest of the workers of company A. He's really not a Company A worker, he only appears to be one on the surface. So-called feminist who have taken the label but are working for entirely different goals are just like corporate spies, working within a group and calling themselves a member, but working to accomplish something entirely different. Pointing out that they're working for entirely different goals and thus not a member is different from the fallacy because the fallacy is based on trying to redefine the group to exclude unpleasant acts or traits, but there's no attempted redefinition going on when the people weren't part of the group except to use it as camouflage or to smear the group's name.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday June 14 2015, @06:05PM
Only if they agree with your definition of "equality", "subservient", "inferior", etc.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Saturday June 13 2015, @03:27PM
correct. if you take the label of "christian" ("one who follows the teachings of Christ") and then don't follow Christ's teachings and in fact do the exact opposite, you're not a christian. this is different from the fallacy, eg "no real christian would ever eat pork!". for a non-religious example, if you call yourself a painter but never paint, you're not a painter! "no real painter would ever let a day off pass without painting" is fallicious, but a pointing out that a "painter" who never paints and never has painted is not. this is the difference i'm trying to point out. sometimes what appears to be an example of the fallacy isn't really an example, but its tough to distinguish sometimes.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday June 14 2015, @07:45PM
correct. if you take the label of "christian" ("one who follows the teachings of Christ") and then don't follow Christ's teachings and in fact do the exact opposite, you're not a christian.
Then there are basically no Christians. Face it: The bible is an inconsistent mess of a fairy tale book. There are contradictions everywhere, and it's impossible to follow everything. When someone finds something they don't like, they just claim that that part of the bible is 'metaphorical' and therefore it doesn't count. There are many different interpretations of the bible, obviously, so you can't just claim that someone isn't a True Christian just because they don't use the same interpretation that you do.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Monday June 15 2015, @06:53PM
nice strawman, but i didn't say anything about them not being "true" christians. i'm not trying to redefine "christian" to exclude certain people or acts (which is the definition of the fallacy [rationalwiki.org]), but saying that if they don't even meet the loosest definition possible, then they aren't a part of the group. you're exaggerating the actual fallacy; its not fallicious to say that somebody who doesn't meet the definition of a group isn't part of the group. self-labeling is not magic, being part of any group has more specific requirements than mere self-labeling.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Monday June 15 2015, @07:04PM
ah, just to make sure we're using the same definition, i defined "christian" as "one who follows the teachings of christ", but you seem to be using the definition "one who attends a christian denomination church" (which would be Christian, big C); they're the same word but vastly different groups. the rest of the bible doesn't apply to the former definition, the one i stated i was using, so in addition to using a strawman, you're equivocating.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday June 16 2015, @12:44AM
nice strawman, but i didn't say anything about them not being "true" christians.
Nice strawman, but the "you" there was meant as a general "you", since I've seen it done before.
As for your definition above, as I said, the bible is extremely vague and inconsistent in many places. It's not hard to claim to follow Christ's teachings even if it seems to everyone else that you're not.
No equivocation or straw men here.
you're exaggerating the actual fallacy; its not fallicious to say that somebody who doesn't meet the definition of a group isn't part of the group. self-labeling is not magic, being part of any group has more specific requirements than mere self-labeling.
The problem is that the labels themselves often have extremely subjective or vague definitions, enabling nearly anyone to qualify. Which teachings must they follow? How many can they ignore before they don't qualify? What if the 'correct' interpretation of this mess of a fairy tale book that you must use, if any? The terms would have to be more objectively defined.
So I don't disagree that if you don't meet the definition of a group that you're not part of the group, but if the qualifications are sufficiently vague and subjective, just about anyone can qualify.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Tuesday June 16 2015, @01:19AM
which is exactly why i said can be difficult if not impossible to differentiate between examples of the fallacy and pointing out that somebody really isn't part of a group. people lie all the time, anybody can say they're a member of a group, but that doesn't automatically make them a member. all that can be done is looking at the loosest definition of the group and seeing if they fit; so long as its a pre-existing definition and not being narrowed to exclude the person or people in question, its not fallicious. if a group is so broadly defined that self-labeling is all thats required to be part of it, then there's no point in labeling anyone as a member, the same way a word thats so broad that it could mean anything is meaningless and useless to use.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday June 16 2015, @03:57AM
if a group is so broadly defined that self-labeling is all thats required to be part of it, then there's no point in labeling anyone as a member, the same way a word thats so broad that it could mean anything is meaningless and useless to use.
There goes most labels. Good riddance.